Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[shiv.somashekhar]

I have tended to observe the opposite: the Indian diaspora do NOT want to see themselves as brahmanas, because to do so would be to invite guilt over their materialistic lifestyles. Thus, they argue that varNa has nothing to do with birth, which effectively frees them from the responsibility of trying to maintain a brahminical lifestyle.

I have seen that too. My previous post is about foreigners who were born Christian (mostly) and chose to become Hindus.

[Viraja]

As for the topic. I am curious how people view the term 'Liberal Hinduism'? or is it the same as Neo-Hinduism?

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EMji,

To my understanding, ridiculing idol worship or thinking that it is not worship of god, thinking all religions are one at the same which may lead to gradual weakening and ultimately lack thereof of any grasp into 'Hindu reality' of deity worship and rituals, is termed as 'Neo Hinduism'. (I am, as a matter of fact, a 'Neo Hindu' because while I do not believe all religions to be on a par with hinduism, I do believe people can get to somewhere with other religions too... that atleast satisfies to me the presence of saints in other religions.)

[Viraja]

Culture is a whole other topic.

But out of curiosity, can you please explain what you mean by great culture and how that may be better than the culture you are raising your kids in?

C'mon Shiv ji. I do not have to list the minuses of other religions / of the West here - drinking, smoking, premarital sex, extramarital affairs leading to divorce done commonly by women (well as I see in some soap-operas) cripple the culture of the West.

[shiv.somashekhar]

C'mon Shiv ji. I do not have to list the minuses of other religions / of the West here - drinking, smoking, premarital sex, extramarital affairs leading to divorce done commonly by women (well as I see in some soap-operas) cripple the culture of the West.

What has any of this got to do with religion? As for all the other vices you mention, they happen in India too - perhaps on a slightly smaller scale, but certainly not due to religion. it is due to the conservative culture in that part of world which also includes Pakistan, Arabian countries, etc.

Back to your original question, I see Indians parents in the US take a lot of interest in retaining Indian culture, which includes eating curds rice, enrolling their children into Bal Vihar and such programs, getting their kids to dance to bollyood songs in cultural gatherings and posting these dance videos on youtube, etc. On the other hand kids in India are more keen on pizza, pasta and collecting mavericks t-shirts. It is also the grass is greener on the other side syndrome. The parent and child in India thinks American culture is cool, while the Indian parent who has moved here wants to try and retain hold of his/her home culture.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Eastern Mind

You noted, "When financial POV is put ahead of spiritual progress, what can you expect?"

Frankly, a financial POV seems to have no boundaries. I just had a conversation with my Mother-In-Law currently in India. Then on the phone with several relatives. In fact this went over several days.

To get right down to the point, from the description she told of so many changes, some good, but a lot bad, and she rings very true when she explains things to others, well.... Frankly, her greatest disappointment is more with so many Hindus living in India, than here in California or in the West including Canada. The greed, the money grabbing, the bribery and the demands just to get the most simple of things to be done, all coming from those who purport to be Hindu, is not good, or worse than before.

Sometimes they want to leave. It is not just a financial POV. There are other reasons. Sometimes it is to escape from being put in a financial straight jacket. Sometimes that isn't bad, it is very good. So in one way, while on the premise of leaving a cultural heritage, some of those who I have found to be here in California, they are now actually more free to be a part of cultural heritage than was the case in India. Sometimes a financial POV is actually simply wanting to be able to be free to do what you naturally have the ability to do. So sometimes, we get the benefit of, that is for example here in the US, of their association!

Personally, always adventuring in this family called "Hinduism", I hope to be in India again soon. We will see.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

My definition- Neo-Hinduism is a set of doctrines conceived of in the late colonial era which did not exist in pre-British India.

My problem is more that neo-hindus do not accept that their beleifs are not in accordance with traditional hinduism and present their beleifs as 'Hindu' beleifs rather than their personal opinion.

[MahaHrada]

My definition- Neo-Hinduism is a set of doctrines conceived of in the late colonial era which did not exist in pre-British India.

My problem is more that neo-hindus do not accept that their beleifs are not in accordance with traditional hinduism and present their beleifs as 'Hindu' beleifs rather than their personal opinion.

But you yourself are an example of this kind of colonial type of vedantic neo Hindu who represents Vedanta and the Vedas and Upanishads as the measuring stick and final authority of what `true` Hinduism is.

This is Neo Hinduism, while in traditional Hinduism, vedantic teachings shruti and smriti was only taught and accepted as pramana by a tiny minority of Hindus, the dvijas of the vedic community, and study was strictly forbidden for other communities.

To represent vedanta nonetheless as if it is the guiding light of all of Hinduism, and discuss it with people from other communities than the vedic dvijas, even with foreigners, while disregarding and ignoring what actually constitutes the majority belief of hindu culture and religion, that is what is called Neo-Hinduism and that is what you do since you are posting on HDF.

[Omkara]

But you yourself are an example of this kind of colonial type of vedantic neo Hindu who represents Vedanta and the Vedas and Upanishads as the measuring stick and final authority of what `true` Hinduism is.

This is Neo Hinduism, while in traditional Hinduism, vedantic teachings shruti and smriti was only taught and accepted as pramana by a tiny minority of Hindus, the dvijas of the vedic community, and study was strictly forbbiden for other communities.

To represent it nonetheless as if it is the guiding light of all of Hinduism, disregarding and ignoring what actually constitutes the majority belief of hindu culture and religion that is what is called Neo-Hindusim and that is what you do since you are posting on HDF.

Huh? As a Shaiva, I wouldn't qualify as 'vedantic' in any fashion, since in consonance with Shaiva beleifs, I do not accept the Bhagavad Gita which is part of the vedantic prasthana trayi. Besides which, given my sectarian affiliation, my beleifs could best be described as 'agamic' or 'tantric'.

Besides which, religious doctrine is not based on the popular vote. It is determined by what the theologians say. Just because many christians today do not beleive that non-christians will go to hell does not mean christianity says the same.

Also, I defined neo-Hinduism as-

My definition- Neo-Hinduism is a set of doctrines conceived of in the late colonial era which did not exist in pre-British India.

My problem is more that neo-hindus do not accept that their beleifs are not in accordance with traditional hinduism and present their beleifs as 'Hindu' beleifs rather than their personal opinion.

People with my beleifs certainly existed before the colonial period , and people who beleived that vedanta is, in your words,'the measuring stick and final authority of what `true` Hinduism is.'

also existed before the vedantic period.

thus, by my definition, modern Agamic hindus and vedantins are not neo-hindus.

[shiv.somashekhar]

But you yourself are an example of this kind of colonial type of vedantic neo Hindu who represents Vedanta and the Vedas and Upanishads as the measuring stick and final authority of what `true` Hinduism is.

This is Neo Hinduism, while in traditional Hinduism, vedantic teachings shruti and smriti was only taught and accepted as pramana by a tiny minority of Hindus, the dvijas of the vedic community, and study was strictly forbbiden for other communities.

Yes. When one quotes the Rig-Veda or an Upanishad or the Gita (or any scripture) as the definitive Hindu position, that is Neo-Hinduism. There are countless non-Vedic beliefs (mostly without any scripture) in India and pretending they do not exist is incorrect - especially not when they form the bulk of the population.

From the time of Al-Beruni, and then Max Mueller and co, this has been the pattern. Christians and Muslims just could not take idol worship, polytheism and lack of scripture seriously. Therefore, they selected choice elements of Hinduism which mirrored their own ideas of a bonafide religion and described only this constructed version of Hinduism - leaving everything else out.

Vivekananda was a man on a mission. He had to take Hinduism to the west and he knew that if he talked out Ganesha, polytheism, etc, he would be dismissed as a pagan. He picked his own elements of choice - which he knew would work with foreigners and he created his own version of Hinduism.

[MahaHrada]

Huh? As a Shaiva, I wouldn't qualify as 'vedantic' in any fashion, since in consonance with Shaiva beleifs, I do not accept the Bhagavad Gita which is part of the vedantic prasthana trayi. Besides which, given my sectarian affiliation, my beleifs could best be described as 'agamic' or 'tantric'.

A traditional shaiva would not quote from Vedas and Upanishads, but from agamas and tantras, i cannot remember a single quote from Agamas or Tantras in any of your postings only cartloads of vedic and vedantic sources.

People with my beleifs certainly existed before the colonial period , and people who beleived that vedanta is, in your words,'the measuring stick and final authority of what `true` Hinduism is.'

Of course such people did not exist, traditional Hindus would not even dream about discusssing siddhanta or vedanta with foreigners or other communities that have no qualification. Thats just what you and all other Neo Hindus think of themselves, traditional Hindus would not agree, like you observed correctly.